Re: x-post: Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal



On Feb 11, 8:55 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 8:37 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:

>
> >> <snip underinformed opinion>

>
> >> 1. there are no reported accidents that can be definitely distinguished
> >> from user error.

>
> > Exactly. Tim like to throw bombs around about these reported
> > incidents, but never once has anyone proven that it was actually the
> > forces in question vs. user error.

>
> So because it hasn't been proven yet you guys are 100% certain that it's
> been user error?


Strawman.

> Gimme a break.


Same to ya.

E.P.
 
Ben C? writes:

>>> Funny that you continue to ignore the fact that the industry
>>> appears to have decided that Annan was right all along and has
>>> changed the design of dropouts to reduce or eliminate the problem.


>> so why hasn't the industry redesigned brake cable clamping designs?
>> front mounted rim brake calipers, etc.?


> I think front mounted calipers is overkill, and has the drawback of
> putting the mountings in tensile fatigue as you've explained.


I think you put too much concern on tension. These attachments don't
generate significant tension but the crews tightness does and the
bending loads are the ones of significance, but even these are
inconsequential to durability.

> But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a bit,
> as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the theoretical
> and/or real problems?


While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
dropouts were angled at about 30° up/rearward.

Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ben C? writes:
>
>>>> Hmm, how about a better idea altogether-- a caliper acting
>>>> directly on the rim?

>
>>> Caliper in front acting on the rim? Cheap bikes with caliper
>>> brakes which were never fully tightened to the fork, or which were
>>> bashed when the bars spun around, have brake bolt failures
>>> regularly, snapped or simply detached when the nut fell off.
>>> Probably more often than disc ejection. The world is filled with
>>> real problems.

>
>> If the caliper brake is at the top and acting on the rim, the
>> direction of the ejection force is close to horizontally backwards.
>> So nothing to worry about in terms of wheel ejection.

>
>> But I wonder if putting the caliper behind the fork would reduce
>> brake bolt failures? That way the bolts and mounting points would be
>> in compressive rather than tensile fatigue.

>
>> The rear bolt is already in the compressive position, behind the
>> seat stays. I wonder if they fail less often... plenty of other
>> reasons though like the simple fact that the front brake applies
>> much more force.

>
>> Easier just to beef up the bolt a bit though than try to squeeze the
>> calipers in where there is no space for them.

>
> Brake anchor bolts have no significant tensile stress, the principal
> stress is bending and that doesn't change with putting the caliper
> behind the fork crown (assuming there were space).


but it sure does help the situation if the bolt is not tightened properly...
 
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:25:02 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
> dropouts were angled at about 30° up/rearward.


Those of us who have mudguards (USA = fenders) on most of our bikes would
object to that. What's wrong with horizontal forward?


Mike
 
Mike Causer writes:

>> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
>> dropouts were angled at about 30° up/rearward.


> Those of us who have mudguards (USA = fenders) on most of our bikes
> would object to that. What's wrong with horizontal forward?


I see no advantage in that orientation and a disadvantage that normal
wheel (upward) loading does not reinforce engagement with the dropout.

Jobst Brandt
 
jim beam wrote:
>
> Mike Causer wrote:
> >
> > If you have all of these conditions then the margin for error in securing
> > the QR is pretty close to zero.

>
> but that applies to many aspects of the bike, not just a disk brake.
> non-disk bikes are completely dependent on brakes being correctly set
> up, cables clamped properly, etc. handlebars [friction] clamped
> properly, saddles, crank bolts, even front q.r.'s.


But you can, and we do, reef on all that stuff in the stand or on the
shop floor and determine that it's good to go. The only way to get a
maximum brake reaction force, though, is to do some maximum braking--
and in doing so, to expose yourself to whatever risk is was you were
trying to minimize.

The last time I went out to do a methodical max braking test, I
buckled my bike's downtube and broke both my arms. Since then, I just
set up my brakes as well as I can and hope for the best in the event I
have to brake at ten tenths out on the street.

Chalo
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Mike Causer writes:

>> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
>> dropouts were angled at about 30° up/rearward.


> Those of us who have mudguards (USA = fenders) on most of our bikes
> would object to that. What's wrong with horizontal forward?


I see no advantage in that orientation and a disadvantage that normal
wheel (upward) loading does not reinforce engagement with the dropout.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst and Mike,
I'm not certain what you mean by your descriptions of angles. Would you
translate them into something like "dropout opens from axle center to 9:00
as seen from left side of bike"? I _think_ that's what Mike meant. Or
"dropout opens from axle center to 7:00 as seen from left side of bike" I
_think_ that's what Jobst meant. Or I could be 180 degrees (or 6 hours)
wrong in both cases.
Thanks,
Kerry
 
Kerry Montgomery writes:

>>> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
>>> dropouts were angled at about 30? up/rearward.


>> Those of us who have mudguards (USA = fenders) on most of our bikes
>> would object to that. What's wrong with horizontal forward?


> I see no advantage in that orientation and a disadvantage that
> normal wheel (upward) loading does not reinforce engagement with the
> dropout.


> I'm not certain what you mean by your descriptions of angles. Would
> you translate them into something like "dropout opens from axle
> center to 9:00 as seen from left side of bike"? I _think_ that's
> what Mike meant. Or "dropout opens from axle center to 7:00 as seen
> from left side of bike" I _think_ that's what Jobst meant. Or I
> could be 180 degrees (or 6 hours) wrong in both cases.


30° up/rearward := dropout slot sloping upward to the rear at 30°
rear := opposite to front (which is direction of travel)

Jobst Brandt
 
On 2007-02-12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C? writes:

[...]
>> But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a bit,
>> as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the theoretical
>> and/or real problems?

>
> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
> dropouts were angled at about 30° up/rearward.


Interesting, why? It seems then you might be close to risking wheel
ejections even with rim brakes.
 
Ben C? writes:

>>> But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a bit,
>>> as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the theoretical
>>> and/or real problems?


>> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
>> dropouts were angled at about 30? up/rearward.


> Interesting, why? It seems then you might be close to risking wheel
> ejections even with rim brakes.


Ooooh! They should slope up and to the rear means from bottom to top,
the bottom being the opening and the top being closed end of the slot.
The wording was chosen to not imply a 30° downward slop to the rear
whoch would make axle separation more likely.

Jobst Brandt
 
On Feb 11, 7:54 pm, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> This is a variant of the my-uncle-was-a-smoker-and-he-lived-until-95
> argument.


Except for the small details that smoking will most definitely cause
some harm, and, so far, disk brakes have caused none due to the
ejection force being present. (Qualifier: if some harm has occurred,
it certainly hasn't been distinguished from user error.)


> That's why it's not convincing.


If that's the reason why you find the argument unconvincing, then you
aren't thinking about it very carefully.

E.P.
 
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:06:24 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

>> Those of us who have mudguards (USA = fenders) on most of our bikes
>> would object to that. What's wrong with horizontal forward?

>
> I see no advantage in that orientation and a disadvantage that normal
> wheel (upward) loading does not reinforce engagement with the dropout.


With the rearwards drop-out angle the mudguard stops the wheel coming out.
Most of my my punctures seem to happen when I score two out of four: close
to sunset, close to freezing, too far to walk home, or with a train to
catch. So ease of wheel removal comes close behind wheel security for me.


OTOH, all but one of my bikes are now on Schwalbe tyres, and

fingers crossed

no punctures in the Schwalbes yet.......


Mike
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Ben C? writes:

>>> But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a bit,
>>> as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the theoretical
>>> and/or real problems?


>> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
>> dropouts were angled at about 30? up/rearward.


> Interesting, why? It seems then you might be close to risking wheel
> ejections even with rim brakes.


Ooooh! They should slope up and to the rear means from bottom to top,
the bottom being the opening and the top being closed end of the slot.
The wording was chosen to not imply a 30° downward slop to the rear
whoch would make axle separation more likely.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst,
Thanks for the clarification. Your earlier wording did not imply a 30
degree downward slop to the rear, but could have been interpreted as sloping
up and to the rear from bottom to top, the bottom being the closed end of
the slot and the top being the opening.
Kerry
 
On 2007-02-12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C? writes:

[...]
>> If the caliper is 1/4 the radius of the tyre, and situated at 3
>> o'clock, then the axle force will be only 14 degrees from vertical,
>> not 45. This makes vertical dropouts and a 3 o'clock caliper much
>> riskier than I had thought.

>
>> So yes, not just a large magnitude but a direction close enough to
>> the dropout exit direction that I can believe the axle could roll
>> down the dropout.

>
> I don't know with what values you are starting but the limiting
> condition is when the rear wheel lifts from braking.


That's my basic model, with a friction coefficient of 1.0, and so the
braking force is horizontal and rearward.

> Rough terrain is not required for this and only clouds the issue.


It does cloud the issue, but it needs to be considered in case it is a
factor.

> Smooth dry pavement will do. At liftoff the line of action of the
> rider/bicycle CG can act at a 45° angle to the tire contact (which is
> not the angle of action at the dropouts).


What difference does the line of action of the rider/bicycle CG make?
I'm just considering the forces applied to the disk by the caliper and
to the tyre by the road (contact force, vertically upwards, and braking
force, normal to that, horizontally rearwards).

> If the disk is roughly 1/4 the wheel diameter, a downward force about
> 8x the upward force occurs on that end of the axle, perpendicular to
> the brake pad to axle axis. The 8x effect arises from the brake force
> being concentrated on one dropout and the wheel load resting on two.


Yes, good point.

> The wheel does not lift out of the dropouts but is canted with one end
> shifting downward in one dropout only to cause wheel lockup.


If the wheel actually did eject, I imagine the bike would sort of hop up
over the wheel.

Anyway, I now revise my calculations again :)

This time I get 24 degrees from vertical for Ben Micklem's wheel
(caliper at 2:30), which makes it 44 degrees between ejection force and
dropout direction (his dropouts are 20 degrees forwards). I get only 8
degrees from vertical for a caliper at 3 o'clock.

Here is my working in the form of a GNU Octave script if anyone has the
energy to check it.

function phi = ejection_angle(theta, R, r)
% theta is angle of caliper in radians, measured anticlockwise with 0 at 3
% o'clock. R is tyre radius, r is disk radius. phi is angle of ejection
% force from vertical in degrees.

% The caliper force. x +'ve is rearward, y -'ve is downward.
c = [sin(theta), -cos(theta)];

% Its magnitude is scaled by difference in radius between disk and tyre,
% and multiplied again by 2 since the disk is only on one side of the axle.
c *= 2*R / r;

% Add the braking force and the contact force (friction coefficient is 1.0)
% to give the net force f on the wheel under braking.
f = c + [1, 0] + [0, 1];

% Work out that vector's direction from vertical
phi = atan(f(1) / f(2));
phi *= -360 / (2*pi);
endfunction

% Caliper at 2:30.
theta = (0.5 / 12) * 2*pi;
disp(ejection_angle(theta, 675.14, 160));

% Caliper at 3:00
disp(ejection_angle(0, 675.14, 160));
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 11, 7:54 pm, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is a variant of the my-uncle-was-a-smoker-and-he-lived-until-95
>> argument.

>
> Except for the small details that smoking will most definitely cause
> some harm, and, so far, disk brakes have caused none due to the
> ejection force being present.


None? You're sure about that?

Greg
 
On 2007-02-12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ben C? writes:
>
>>>> But moving the dropout angle forwards and the caliper upwards a bit,
>>>> as some designs already do-- wouldn't that solve the theoretical
>>>> and/or real problems?

>
>>> While you are at it, I think we would be better off if all fork
>>> dropouts were angled at about 30? up/rearward.

>
>> Interesting, why? It seems then you might be close to risking wheel
>> ejections even with rim brakes.

>
> Ooooh! They should slope up and to the rear means from bottom to top,
> the bottom being the opening and the top being closed end of the slot.
> The wording was chosen to not imply a 30° downward slop to the rear
> whoch would make axle separation more likely.


I get it now, yes, sounds like a good idea. I did wonder what you were
on about...
 
On Feb 12, 2:27 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 11, 7:54 pm, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> This is a variant of the my-uncle-was-a-smoker-and-he-lived-until-95
> >> argument.

>
> > Except for the small details that smoking will most definitely cause
> > some harm, and, so far, disk brakes have caused none due to the
> > ejection force being present.

>
> None? You're sure about that?
>
> Greg


The answer to both questions is in the part you trimmed.

E.P.
 
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 12, 2:27 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Feb 11, 7:54 pm, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> >> This is a variant of the my-uncle-was-a-smoker-and-he-lived-until-95
>> >> argument.

>>
>> > Except for the small details that smoking will most definitely cause
>> > some harm, and, so far, disk brakes have caused none due to the
>> > ejection force being present.

>>
>> None? You're sure about that?
>>
>> Greg

>
> The answer to both questions is in the part you trimmed.
>


"(Qualifier: if some harm has occurred, it certainly hasn't been
distinguished from user error.)"

So now you're omniscient?

Greg
 
On Feb 12, 3:02 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 2:27 pm, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]...

>
> >> > On Feb 11, 7:54 pm, Gary Young <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> >> This is a variant of the my-uncle-was-a-smoker-and-he-lived-until-95
> >> >> argument.

>
> >> > Except for the small details that smoking will most definitely cause
> >> > some harm, and, so far, disk brakes have caused none due to the
> >> > ejection force being present.

>
> >> None? You're sure about that?

>
> >> Greg

>
> > The answer to both questions is in the part you trimmed.

>
> "(Qualifier: if some harm has occurred, it certainly hasn't been
> distinguished from user error.)"
>
> So now you're omniscient?


Strawman.

If you've got any, and I mean ANY, credible data that any of the
incidents involving wheel ejection have been proven as disk-brake
caused, go ahead and cite it.

E.P.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:19:17 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >In 40 years of riding bikes I've never seen a broken pivot bolt on a
> >front brake. That of course doesn't mean it hasn't happened, just
> >that I've never seen it. I don't recall any reports of this in the
> >newsgroups, either, but that could be inaccurate as well. Carl
> >could probably use his prodigious Googling skills and find us some
> >photos of failed pivot bolts.

>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> No need to Google--the picture that you click on to see the bicycle
> component failure museum shows a broken front brake pivot bolt:
>
> http://materials.open.ac.uk/mem/mem_ccf2.htm


Thanks! I can't to the larger version of the photos for some reason.
In the small version it almost looks like it was sawed. Nice wear
pattern on the brake shoes, too.

> Interestingly, it only broke because of poor maintenance:
>
> "This front brake assembly broke off under braking and severely
> injured the cyclist. Poor maintenance had allowed the brake bolt to
> loosen and allow the assembly to 'chatter' when braking imposing
> cyclic loads instead of steady stress on the fastening bolt."
>
> In 40 years of riding, have you ever seen a disk brake eject a front
> wheel?


Yes, I tested it on a couple of bikes with disk brakes to verify the
existence of the ejection force (which I didn't believe at the time. It
seemed like fearmongering and handwaving to me. Oops.). Of course, I
did leave the QR undone at the time...
 

Similar threads